Leaderboard

I'm still not sure how it wasn't classified under the NFA. And to your point, Congress could easily do this. The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845#:~:text=The term “machinegun” means any,single function of the trigger.

Not if his or her jumps were cheaper Wendy P.

Person, man, woman, camera, who are you again?

You have an “independent” understanding of aerobatic airplanes. While we encourage independent thought, your own theories are so far from fonventional wisdom that’s e have difficulty understanding them. We also u d’état and that English is your second language. My understanding is based upon my private pilot license, many years maintains Canadian Air Force aircraft, etc. I would encourage you to read some of the textbooks used in private pilot ground school (e.g. “From the Ground Up” for Canadian pilots). Aerobatic airplanes are not radically different than conventional airplanes. Aerobatic airplanes fly based upon the same principles as non-aerobatic airplanes. Any airplane can do a few aerobatic maneuvers (simple loops, rolls and spins) but will only remain structurally intact if flown by a gentle pilot. Many airplanes are placarded against intentional spins because of sluggish recoveries from spins.Any “mere mortal” pilot who attempts aerobatics - in an airplane not approved for aerobatics - is an idiot. See the accident in Belgium where a bored jump-pilot pulled a wing off of a Pilatus Porter because he got bored flying skydivers. Pilatus responded by issuing a Special Inspection to check for cracks in wing strut fittings. Returning the the notion of conventional airplanes. Let’s start with the aerobatic version of the Blanik glider. It has shorter wings than to reduce loads on the spars in the wing roots. Otherwise it is built from mostly the same parts as the long-wing Blaniks that are popular with gliding students. Blaniks can do most of the gentle aerobatic maneuvers like loops, rolls, stalls and spins. When they fly inverted, Blanik wings work the same way - by deflecting air downwards - the only difference is that their positively cambered wings are less efficient while inverted. When I say “inverted” I mean stable, 1 G flight almost horizontal. Gliders cannot fly perfectly horizontal for more than a few seconds because they are always trading altitude for forward speed … the same way as the Jalbert’s Para-Foil, square, Ram-air parachutes that are currently fashionable among skydivers. Next let’s look at Cessna’s 150 Aerobat which is a slightly modified version of the 2-seat trainer that many pilots started on. Modifications are limited by to a few local reinforcements (e.g. rudder control horns) windows in the ceiling, quick-release doors and quick-removable seat-cushions. The quick-removable seat-cushions make room for pilot emergency parachutes. Cessna 150 can do all the basic aerobatic maneuvers and is only limited when flying inverted until the engine quits for lack of oil and gasoline. Cessna engines depend upon gravity to flow gasoline from fuel tanks - above the engine/in the wings - to the engine. Cessna builds 150s using the same materials, tooling and techniques as the 182 and 206 models that are popular with skydivers. The dedicated competition aerobatic planes built by Extra, Sukhoi and Zlin differ by stronger airframes, symmetric wings, larger control surfaces, more powerful engines and inverted systems in engines. Stronger airframes allow pulling more age in tighter turns and last longer during violent maneuvering. Symmetric wings are less efficient in cruise, but have the advantage of lifting equally as well upright or inverted. Aerobatic wings tend to be thicker for strength. Larger control surfaces applied ore yaw, pitch, roll for tighter maneuvers. On this issue, you are confusing stability with engine power. Aerobatic airplanes are designed for neutral stability to provide the same handling whether upright or inverted. A disadvantage is that constantly try to wander during cruise flight, so constantly require pilot inputs to keep them upright. More powerful engines improve climbing back up start the next maneuver. A typical competition aerobat has the same 6-cylinder, 300 horsepower Continental or Lycoming engine as installed in a Cessna 206 jump-plane hauling 6 skydivers. Inverted systems in engines include extra fuel and oil pumps to keep the engine running during extended inverted flight. The only part of aerobatic flight - that does not involve conventional aerodynamics - is knife-edge flight where wings are vertical (90 degrees from cruise) but the airplane somehow flies horizontal … on its side. If you look closely, you will notice that the propeller is pointed 30 degrees above the horizon and the airplane is trying to constantly climb, but the fuselage makes for a loosy lifting body/wing.

Would be helpful if your congress was functioning and would just introduce legislation banning bump stocks.

There are gears slipping, alright, and it's not just SCOTUS: it is us. We shouldn't need them to tell us that bump stocks, silencers, automatic weapons of any type, etc. etc. etc., aren't necessary to living a happy fulfilled life any more than we should need a church to teach us right from wrong or what is moral or not. We are a sick, selfish, society unable by all evidence to collectively do the right things for the right reasons: cue up the original sin crowd and fire up the band. Hopefully in the future, when our fossilized remains are being studied, they won't be laughing too hard.